A MEETING of the COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF GOSPORT was held in the Council Chamber at the TOWN HALL, GOSPORT on WEDNESDAY, the FOURTH day of FEBRUARY at 6.00 PM.
Also in attendance: Honorary Aldermen Mrs Bailey, Flory, Foster, O'Neill and Rushton.
_____________
APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors Carter, Mrs Gravell and Jacobs.
_______________
MINUTES
_______________
___________
___________
___________
AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE HOUSING BOARD
WAS HELD ON 22 JANUARY 2004
The Mayor (ex-officio), Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Allen (P), Burgess (P), Carr (P), Carter (P), Mrs Cully (P), Farr (P), Gill (P), P Russell (P), Smith (P) and Mrs Wright (Chairman) (P).
(It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Carr had been nominated to substitute at this meeting for the existing vacancy).
PART I
28. COUNCIL DWELLING RENTS 2004/05
Consideration was given to a joint report of the Financial Services Manager and the Housing Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "HO1"), which considered the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budgets for 2004/05 and made recommendations on rent levels for that financial year.
Members were advised that the housing maintenance budget for 2003/04 was £2.645 million, which represented an increase of £0.105 million on the original budget, the principal cause of this increase being higher than anticipated void property expenditure. An increase of 22% on void property expenditure was anticipated for the year but the revenue cost increase was expected to be more than compensated for by an overall projected surplus on the HRA of £206,000 against a planned deficit of £5,000 in the original budget for 2003/04.
The proposed housing maintenance budget for 2004/05 was £2.515 million representing a £130,000 decrease on the 2003/04 revised estimate. This was largely due to a decrease in maintenance and related staffing costs due to the proposed transfer of the Council's tower blocks.
It was anticipated that the HRA balance level would increase to £896,000 by the end of the current year. This was primarily due to a one-off payment to the HRA for its set-up costs in relation to the supporting people scheme. The HRA balance was predicted to reduce to £638,000 by the end of 2004/05. This projected balance level was above the 5% of budgeted expenditure (£530,000) currently recommended by the Borough Treasurer as a minimum prudent level. It equated to an average of £187 per property, which was well below the national average of £300 per property. Members were advised that maintaining prudent HRA levels was regarded as important in order to safeguard against the financial effect of risks identified within the HRA Risk Assessment.
Members were advised that, for the first time, the HRA in 2004/05 would show a negative figure alongside the subsidy line in the HRA budget of £2.155 million. However, this would be completely offset by the removal of the rent rebates expenditure from the HRA as of 1 April 2004.
Members were advised that the Government's rent restructuring policy had come into effect in 2002/03 although authorities had been given the option not to implement the restructuring on an individual basis until 2003/04. This Authority agreed to the implementation for 2003/04.
In order for rent convergence to be achieved by the Government deadline of 2012, it was recommended that the proposed rental increase in accordance with 'rent restructuring' guidelines (zero to £3.14 per week) be approved together with 2.5% rental increase for garages, car ports, parking lots and four non-HRA properties.
RECOMMENDED: That with effect from 1 April 2004
(i) Council dwelling rents be increased in line with national 'Rent Restructuring' guidelines – the effect of these proposals for 2004/05 ranging from a zero rent increase to a maximum increase of £3.14 per week; and
(ii) Garage, carport and parking lot rents increase by 2.5%.
RESOLVED: That the recommendations contained in Minute No 28 be approved and adopted.
____________
A MEETING OF THE POLICY AND ORGANISATION BOARD
WAS HELD ON 21 JANUARY 2004
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Bone (P), Burgess (P), Cully (Chairman) (P) Gill (P), Hook (P), Langdon (P), M Russell (P), Searle (P), Wright (P) and Mrs Wright (P).
PART I
49. REVIEW OF NEW DELEGATED PROCEDURE
The Board considered a Reference from the Regulatory Board (4 November 2003) (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "PO1") on a review of a new delegated procedure. The Regulatory Services Manager reported that reference to "paragraphs 2.3 – 2.5 (above)" in paragraph 3.5 of his report required amendment to "paragraphs 3.2 – 3.4 (above)". Members were informed that the revised Scheme of Delegation had been in operation since 1 April 2003 and the impact on performance of the revised Scheme had been assessed. It was reported that within the six-month period, there had been a total of 399 decisions made on planning applications of which 335 (84%) had been delegated to Officers.
Members were informed that in order to increase the number of delegated decisions, additional categories of application were proposed for inclusion within the scheme. This would secure further improvements in performance likely to result in the Council consistently meeting the government target of 90% delegation.
It was confirmed that Members would still have the opportunity to request that any application be referred to the Regulatory Board for consideration if objections were received (where the recommendation was for permission) or letters of support received (where the recommendation was for refusal).
RECOMMENDED: That the proposals outlined in the report to further amend the Scheme of Delegation be recommended to Council for adoption.
RESOLVED: That the recommendation contained in Minute No 49 be approved and adopted.
____________
AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE POLICY AND ORGANISATION BOARD
WAS HELD ON 26 JANUARY 2004
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Bone (P), Cully (Chairman) (P), Gill (P), Hayward (P), Hook (P), Langdon (P), M Russell (P), Searle (P), Wright (P) and Mrs Wright (P).
In accordance with Standing Orders it was reported that Councillor Hayward had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Burgess.
PART I
(NOTE: Councillor Edgar declared a personal and prejudicial interest during the debate on the item below and withdrew at the appropriate time from the meeting and took no part in the discussion thereon).
53. COUNCIL BUDGET 2004-2005
Members received References from the Boards concerning their draft Revenue Budgets for 2004-2005 (including Fees and Charges) and their Capital Programmes for 2003/2004 to 2009/2010.
The Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer submitted his report on the Council Budget 2004-2005 (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "PO2"). He reported that the proposed budget for 2004/05 was £10.71M, which represented an increase of £0.235M on the current year. The revised Budget for 2003/04 was about £0.1M higher than the original Budget, principally due to additional net expenditure requirements on Homelessness. It was anticipated that the overspend in 2003/04 would be financed from Working Balance, which would reduce it to £0.36M. The General Fund Working Balance would be increased to £0.56M during 2004/05, although this may vary slightly when final grant settlement figures are announced early in February 2004.
The Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer drew the Board's attention to the Council's Capital Programme for the next six years, which amounted to over £34M and was partially dependent on the raising of further external funding, although the plans for 2004/05 could be fully funded in accordance with new capital controls.
The Budget of £10.71M for 2004/05 was considered both balanced and robust and was expected to produce an increase of 12.9% in Gosport's share of the Council Tax. This equated to an extra 30p per week on Gosport's average Band B property.
This was necessary in order to maintain existing services and begin the restoration of adequate resources.
RECOMMENDED: That –
(i) the revised 2003/04 General Fund Budget totalling £10, 477,590 and the 2004/05 General Fund Budget of £10,712,910 (plus the associated Fees and Charges and Capital Programme) including a contribution to reserves of £200,000 (subject to adjustment when final grant figures are known) be approved; and
(ii) a policy to achieve the 7% target General Fund Working Balance level by March 2007 be confirmed.
MOTION: That the recommendations contained in Minute No 53 be approved and adopted.
AMENDMENT: That the recommendations contained in Minute No 53 be approved and adopted subject to the figures on the second and fourth lines of recommendation (i) being amended to read £10,702,910 and £190,000 respectively and the deletion of the words in the parenthesis on the penultimate line of recommendation (i).
Upon the Amendment being put to the meeting it was declared CARRIED.
SECOND AMENDMENT: That the recommendations contained in Minute No 53 be approved and adopted subject to Members Allowance payments for 2004/05 being frozen at 2003/04 levels.
Upon the Second Amendment being put to the meeting it was declared CARRIED.
Where upon the Substantive Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.
In accordance with Standing Order 4.12.5, Councillors Chegwyn, Gill and Smith wished to have their votes against the Substantive Motion recorded in the Minutes.
54. TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND PRUDENTIAL CODE INDICATORS 2004/2005
The Board considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "PO3") on the Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Code Indicators 2004/05.
It was reported that the Council was required by the Treasury Policy to approve an annual treasury strategy. A further report would be produced after the year-end to report on actual activity for the year. In addition, from 2004/05, prudential indicators had to be considered when setting Treasury Management dealing parameters.
The Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer highlighted in his report the publication of the Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Code). This was a professional code that set out a framework for self-regulation of capital spending, with the effect that Councils were allowed to invest in capital projects without any limit as long as they were affordable, prudent and sustainable. This would come into force for 2004/05 and the Council was now allowed to determine the appropriate level of capital investment to properly deliver quality public services, subject to affordability. Members' involvement in the process was essential in order that the Council could demonstrate that capital expenditure plans were affordable, external borrowing was prudent and sustainable and that treasury decisions were taken in accordance with good practice. Consequently, the structure and content of the Treasury Management Strategy Report had been modified to comply with the Code.
Further detailed information was given on the following areas:-
· Capital Expenditure and the Capital Financing Requirement;
· Limits to Borrowing Activity;
· Affordability Prudential Indicators
In conclusion the Board was advised of the Treasury Management Strategy. The Treasury Management Service was an important part of the overall financial management of the Council's affairs. Its importance had increased as a result of the freedoms provided by the Prudential Code. It covered the borrowing and investment activities and the effective management of associated risks. The Council adopted the Code of Practice on 18 March 2002 and as a result adopted a Treasury Management Policy Statement. The Strategy covered:
· The current treasury position;
· The expected movement in interest rates;
· The Council's borrowing and debt strategy;
· The Council's investment strategy;
· Treasury performance indicators;
· Specific limits on treasury activities;
· Local treasury issues.
RECOMMENDED: That –
(i) the Treasury Management Strategy outlined in the Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer's report be approved; and
(ii) the Prudential Indicators and Limits within the Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer's report be adopted.
RESOLVED: That the recommendations contained in Minute No 54 be approved and adopted.
___________
A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD
WAS HELD ON 12 JANUARY 2004
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio) (P); Councillors Mrs Angus (P), Mrs Batterbury (P), Bone (P), Mrs Cully (P), Edgar (P), Edwards (P), Mrs Elshaw, Jacobs (P), Kimber (P) and Wright (P).
PART I
|
42. |
NOMINATIONS TO THE SOLENT TRANSPORT PANEL |
|
|
|
By reason of special circumstances, the Chairman determined that this item be considered at this meeting notwithstanding the fact that the item had not been available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of Section 100B(4)(a) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. |
|
|
|
The special circumstances were created by the urgent need to nominate Members to the Solent Transport Panel (STP) to enable Council representation at the first meeting of the STP in March 2004. |
|
|
|
Consideration was given to a report by the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "CE1"), which informed the Board of the County's proposal for an STP. Members were also requested to recommend to Council that 4 Members be nominated to represent the Borough Council on the STP. |
|
|
|
It was proposed and seconded that the Chairman of the Regulatory Board be recommended to Council as one of the representatives to the STP with the remaining three places being divided on a 1:1:1 basis between the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups. |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDED: That Council be recommended to appoint the Chairman of the Regulatory Board as one of the representatives to the Solent Transport Panel with the remaining three places being divided on a 1:1:1 basis between the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups. |
|
|
RESOLVED: That in addition to the Chairman of the Regulatory Board, Councillors Mrs Binfield, Edgar and M Russell be appointed to serve as the Council's representatives on the Solent Transport Panel.
____________
A MEETING OF THE POLICY AND ORGANISATION BOARD
WAS HELD ON 21 JANUARY 2004
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Bone (P), Burgess (P), Cully (Chairman) (P) Gill (P), Hook (P), Langdon (P), M Russell (P), Searle (P), Wright (P) and Mrs Wright (P).
48. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 12 November 2003 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.
PART II
The Chairman reported that in accordance with Standing Order 3.7.2 (c) he had given permission for Councillor Edgar to address the Board on the Haslar Peninsula – Draft Policy Statement report.
50. HASLAR PENINSULA – DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT
The Board considered a report of the Director of Development and Environment on the above Draft Policy Statement.
The Director advised the Board of a number of minor amendments to the Draft Policy Statement. Councillor Edgar then addressed the Board outlining his support for the Haslar Peninsula Draft Policy Statement.
Board Members had been advised that the Haslar Peninsula had been for many years an area in a variety of Armed Forces uses, and whilst this largely remained the case, there was now considerable uncertainty about the future of significant parts of the peninsula, including most notably the Royal Hospital Haslar. This uncertainty was a major concern to the local community. The Haslar peninsula was subject to a series of important environmental constraints and road access was very limited. If any part of the peninsula area was subject to change these constraints and the issue of the sustainability of any future use would be paramount to considerations.
The Draft Policy Statement before Members had been prepared to set out the Borough Council's position regarding the Haslar peninsula, considering key issues and providing general guidance on any possible future change. It had been prepared in consultation with the Borough Council's Member representatives on the Haslar Task Force. Given the continued uncertainty regarding the future of key parts of the peninsula, including particularly the Hospital, the Statement did not undertake a detailed assessment of each site, but provided a general overview intended more as a corporate policy document rather than a planning brief. The draft document provided a wider context and described the area, focusing on its key features and the main environmental constraints. It summarised the current policy framework and established some general principles for future uses on the peninsula.
In conclusion, Members were advised that it was important to prepare such a Draft Policy Statement as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently passing through Parliament was set to be enacted in June/July 2004 which would completely change the way planning documents would be prepared. Any more detailed documentation would need to be prepared according to new procedures yet to be finalised.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the Haslar Peninsula Policy Statement be approved as a Corporate Policy Statement subject to the following amendments: -
· para 2.4 – add a 5th factor:
"5) Various Reviews of Defence operations and the Defence Estate are bringing significant additional Service personnel to the Portsmouth Harbour area";
· para 3.2 – Up date titles as follows:
"the former HMS Hornet, now Fort Blockhouse 3;
Fort Blockhouse 1, including the former HMS Dolphin;
Joint Services Adventure Sail Training Centre"
· para 3.10 – Add reference to the B3333 as an additional access road
"the A32, B3333 and B3385 provide the main routes …."
· Section 4 – A short additional reference to the Local Transport Plan could be included as a Policy Document.
· para 4.5 – "The Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2001-2006 provides a policy led strategy for transport provision in the area. "
· para 5.8 – Amend second sentence:
"However, key worker accommodation would be appropriate in connection with the hospital and other employment sites"
· Section 6 – HMS Hornet and HMS Dolphin are now numbered parts of Fort Blockhouse and should be referred to as such in the text and Plans:
"the former HMS Hornet, now Fort Blockhouse 3
Fort Blockhouse 1, including the former HMS Dolphin"
· para 6.5 – Additional sentence:
"…… needed for hospital use. However, high security uses which would lead to loss of an amenity will not be acceptable. Along the …."
· The Joint Services Sailing Centre (JSSC) is now the Joint Services Adventure Sail Training Centre (JSASTC) and should be referred to as such in the text and Plans should also be changed to reflect this., Reference to the Coastal Forces War Memorial and Hornet sailing club should also be included.
· para 6.10 – Amend as follows:
"The Joint Services Adventure Sail Training Centre, together with the Hornet Sailing Club, can be …… - … consolidation of moorings. The Coastal Forces War Memorial should be safeguarded".
· Plan 2 – Amend Plan to show the locations of Fort Blockhouse, the Submarine Museum and the JSASTC to provide clarity; and
(ii) the Policy Statement be referred to the next available meeting of the Local Strategic Partnership and to other key partnerships.
51. GOSPORT PARK PAVILION – PROPOSED 3-YEAR LEASE
The Board considered a Reference from the Community and Environment Board (12 January 2004) concerning a proposed three-year lease for the Gosport Park Pavilion.
Consideration had been given to a joint report prepared by the Leisure and Amenities Manager and the Corporate Services Manager regarding approval in principle to the Council entering into a three-year lease with Gosport and Fareham Rugby Football Club for the Gosport Park Pavilion on terms and conditions to be agreed by the Council's Head of Property Services.
RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to enter into such legal documentation as is necessary to effect a three-year lease with Gosport and Fareham Rugby Football Club for the Gosport Park Pavilion.
52. 17th CENTURY VILLAGE
The Board considered a Reference from the Community and Environment Board (12 January 2004) concerning the 17th Century Village.
Consideration had been given to a joint report of the Corporate Services Manager and the Leisure Amenities Manager which sought approval for the grant of a new lease to the Trustees of Gosport Living History Society (the 17th Century Village) for a term of ten years at a peppercorn rent on terms and conditions to be agreed by the Council's Head of Property Services.
RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to enter into such legal documentation as is necessary to effect a ten-year lease with the Trustees of Gosport Living History Society (the 17th Century Village).
RESOLVED: That Minute Nos 48 and 50-52 (inclusive) of the meeting of the Policy and Organisation Board held on 21 January 2004 be received.
____________
AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE POLICY AND ORGANISATION BOARD
WAS HELD ON 26 JANUARY 2004
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Bone (P), Cully (Chairman) (P), Gill (P), Hayward (P), Hook (P), Langdon (P), M Russell (P), Searle (P), Wright (P) and Mrs Wright (P).
In accordance with Standing Orders it was reported that Councillor Hayward had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Burgess.
PART II
55. BOARD BUDGET 2004-2005
Consideration was given to the draft Revenue Budget for 2004/05 as prepared by the Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer. The total Budget for 2004/05 was £2,208,350 which was a reduction of £77,060 over the original 2003/04 budget of £2,285,410.
The Board also considered the proposed fees and charges for 2004/05 which related to:-
(i) Explosion!;
(ii) Publications;
(iii) Land Charges; and
(iv) Mobile Home/Caravan sites.
Consideration was given to the Capital Programme for 2003/04 to 2009/10 of which £375,000 related to the 2004/05 financial year. The Board noted that the 2003/04 Revised Capital Programme was £773,000.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) the Board's Revenue Budget for 2004/05 in the sum of £2,208,350 and Capital Programme 2003/04 to 2009/10, of which £375,000 related to 2004/05, be approved and recommended to Council in accordance with Minute No 53 above;
(ii) the Fees and Charges for 2004/05 as set out in Appendix "C" of the Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer's report be approved; and
(iii) approval be given to a 2.9% increase in the Stokes Bay Mobile Home Park site rents from £24.43 to £25.15 per week.
____________
A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD
WAS HELD ON 12 JANUARY 2004
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio) (P); Councillors Mrs Angus (P), Mrs Batterbury (P), Bone (P), Mrs Cully (P), Edgar (P), Edwards (P), Mrs Elshaw, Jacobs (P), Kimber (P) and Wright (P).
|
40. |
APOLOGY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
An apology for inability to attend the meeting was received on behalf of Councillor Mrs Elshaw. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
41. |
MINUTES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Board meeting held on 3 November 2003 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record. |
|
|
|
|
PART II |
|
|
|
43. |
PRIDDY'S HARD TRAFFIC CALMING AND TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS |
|
|
|
Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Development and Environment which sought the Board's approval to implement traffic calming in Sealark Road and traffic regulation orders to restrict waiting on various roads in the Priddy's Hard residential development. |
|
|
|
In accordance with Standing Orders 3.7 Councillor Langdon was permitted to address the Board as Ward Councillor. Councillor Langdon made the following points: |
|
|
|
· That the proposals for double yellow lines along spine roads of the estate were sensible;
· That the Ward Councillors considered that the installation of road humps would create greater dangers than those perceived to be cured by them;
· There are far more dangerous roads in Gosport, Sealark Road was a well designed road of open aspect with good pavements and no housing;
· The road had no history of speed related accidents;
· Road humps could displace traffic onto already heavily used roads;
· The Ward Councillors have received letters, emails and telephone calls from a further 12 objectors and only 2 supporters;
· That he contacted the AA, Police and Fire Service about the proposed speed cushions and they claimed not to have been consulted;
· Road humps have a place, but not here. |
|
|
|
Clarification was sought by Members regarding the level of response to the letter drop conducted by Officers asking for local opinion. Members were informed that the petition of 34 signatures submitted was not a direct response from the letter drop and had therefore not been included in calculating the percentage responses. |
|
|
|
Members were also concerned about the lack of response from any of the consultations. Members were informed that acknowledgements of receipt were rarely given and that no reply was considered to mean that the organisation had no objections to the proposal. |
|
|
|
It was felt that the views and opinions of the Ward Councillors should be taken into consideration when deciding this matter. As the first point of contact for people within the area, Members were of the opinion that the Ward Councillors would best know the views and concerns of the local residents. It was therefore proposed and seconded that the implementation of a traffic-calming scheme on Sealark Road be not supported. |
|
|
|
RESOLVED: That – |
|
|
|
i) That having regard to the proposals and all representations a local inquiry is not held in respect of either proposal; |
|
|
|
ii) That the implementation of a traffic calming scheme comprising a number of speed cushions on the north/south section of Sealark Road between its junctions with Heritage Way and Britannia Way be not approved and that the County Council be advised that the Borough Council does not support the similar measures proposed for the east/west section of Sealark Road between its junctions with Grove Road and Britannia Way; and |
|
|
|
iii) That the Board approve the Making of a Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit waiting at any time on parts of Sealark Road, Heritage Way, Britannia Way and Sovereign Avenue at locations shown in Appendix E of the report. |
|
|
|
44. |
GOSPORT PARK PAVILLION – PROPOSED 3 YEAR LEASE |
|
|
|
Consideration was given to a joint report by the Leisure and Amenities Manager and the Corporate Services Manager which sought the Board's approval, in principle, to enter into a 3 year lease with Gosport and Fareham Rugby Football Club on terms and conditions to be agreed by the Council's Head of Property Services. |
|
|
|
Members were informed that the decision of the Board would need to be referred to the Policy and Organisation Board for authorisation. |
|
|
|
RESOLVED: That – |
|
|
|
i) That the Board authorises the Borough Solicitor to enter into such legal documentation as is necessary to effect the 3 year lease with Gosport and Fareham Rugby Football Club; and |
|
|
